And Packers_Finland is Finnish and has just as much to do with this thread as British.

As for Blitz, I'm pretty sure he's been living in Germany for quite a while, so I won't hold stuff like this against him.

Dammit, I misread Blitz's screen name. I still think he was making a joke. 😛

---

Is that Aaron's GF or just a random chick trying to open a lawsuit on our QB?

Is it me or AR looks much more built then ever?

---

Well, clearly Aaron has the same tastes as Arnold in Total Recall.














i.e., "demure and sleazy" /go Rachel T.

---

I have a theory -- perhaps nothing more than an ill-informed flight of fancy -- in regards to McCarthy's perceived coaching shortcomings in last seasons first-half. Maybe some of you remember that I came to his defense early in the season (I even went so bold as to predict that things would get better -- and when they finally did the ensuing catharsis was overwhelming but welcome). I haven't pulled up the old debates but I'm pretty sure my point, which may not be as salient as seems now in hindsight, was that the offensive line play was the root cause of all the offense's problems. Now, many others on this board took the position that the problem was poor playcalling. Specifically there was some discussion (as alluded to in this thread) about the size or depth of the dropbacks (too many fives and sevens as opposed to threes). When McCarthy expressly articulated changes in that regard -- the need to get rid of the ball faster -- the offense improved.

Okay, where am I going with this? I truly believe that the offense's improvement in the second half of the season had FAR less to do with McCarthy's shift to quicker passing plays and far MORE to do with the offensive line play solidifying. Moreover, I think the desire to get rid of the ball faster was in part a media creation that reached such a boiling point that McCarthy and the rest of the coaching staff and players had no choice but to expressly articulate it being a major part of the problem. I'm not proposing a conspiracy theory or trying to be simply speculative, but I think "we need to get rid of the ball faster" was seen as the better publicly-stated objective than "yeah, our offensive line blows." Basically, I don't think McCarthy's playcalling in the beginning of the season was particularly poor. I don't think there were an unnecessary number of five and seven step drops. I think that there were probably too many though ONLY CONSIDERING that the offensive line was playing like ass.

Now, okay, there are certain things I won't argue. Number one, I won't argue that a change to quicker developing passing plays didn't help. I think it clearly did. I'm only saying that Tauscher's return and general improvement along the offensive front played at least an equally important role. Let's also not forget that the defense vastly improved in the second half of the season. There were a number of dominant performances by the defense (Dallas in particular sets itself apart) that definitely made things easier for Green Bay.

I'm saying a lot here. If I succeed in anything it's hopefully in changing the way we think of McCarthy in last season's first half. Rather than thinking of it in terms of "he learned a lesson" (as in, he wasn't coaching well and then he made some changes and he was coaching well) I think he was dealt a weird set of cards. That is, he couldn't predict that the offensive line was so HISTORICALLY TERRIBLE as it was. Once it reached a boiling point (when we were 4-4 and all of Packer Nation was questioning his professional acumen -- something understandably emotional fans are wont to do -- the story became "we gotta get rid of it faster!" Changes were made. Things improved. BUT -- we also got big ol' dirty Tauscher back. Hell, we probably improved more by omission of Barbre than addition of Tausch, but oh well. And Dom Capers defense came up big seven out of eight weeks down the stretch.

It's good to finally hear some praise going McCarthy's way -- Gruden was practically orally servicing him during the Colts game. I think McCarthy is an excellent offensive mind and outside of the situational woes that ALL FANS have with their coaches, he's been solid. He also appears to be an excellent quarterback developer, if Flynn's improvement this preseason is any indication (maybe it's not; it's just preseason).

Okay. That was a lot. I hope it was at least marginally interesting.

---

Line play did get better, Rodgers admitted he needed to get rid of ball faster

The players only metting after the Tampa loss is when it all turned around...

That picture is from a couple years ago I think.

---

Totally agree. I don't have the time to go look, but I bet if you look at the pre-Tauscher and post-Tauscher line stats (including rushing production) you'll see a marked, positive difference in the play of the line.



Media creation: ESPN, et. all can only "analyze" a team's offense by saying, "lots of weapons but their line sucks" so many times before viewers start tuning out. So commentators start looking around for other things to say, hopefully things that have some basis in the truth, but at the same time, things that might not have as much of a bearing on reality as one might like them to. So, "the line sucks," and EXTRA EXTRA HEAR ALL ABOUT IT, boy wonder Aaron Rodgers holds on to the ball too long. McCarthy is indicted by extension.

Improved line play makes the whole issue go away and the critique that Rodgers holds the ball too long dies a quiet death. It's also interesting that you never heard anyone wish for short pass plays when McCarthy called deep passing plays. Rodgers didn't get a reputation for a beautiful, arching long ball (and 4000 plus yards) from McCarthy dinking and dunking.



And back to the thesis. Fans were emotional. So was the team. Everyone was pissed and wondering what the hell was going on after that Tampa Bay game. We knew what was going on, the O-Line sucked. By this time the "ball too long" meme had picked up steam. We all heard about the "come to Jesus" meeting initiated by veterans like Driver. I guarantee people ripped into the O-line in the meeting, and in other contexts, like they were the plague of the team -- and they were. Everyone points to Rodgers admitting he held the ball to long. Now, Rodgers seems to be a classy guy, so he's not going to come out and toss the guys protecting him (albeit poorly) under the bus. So he goes, "yeah, fine, I'll try to get rid of the ball faster." And maybe he did, and maybe McCarthy did start incorporating more quick pass plays, but we also threw a lot downfield last season, enough to garner Rodgers a ton of yards and some huge acclaim from anyone who pays attention to the NFL. McCarthy didn't make that happen with 3 step drops.

Thank you, Lord, for dirty ol' Tauscher.

---

Rodgers was holding onto the ball too long. It wasn't a myth or urban legend. I think some overreacted a little bit, but they weren't lying about it.

I've rewatched several games from last season this summer and it was evident in the first half of the season. You saw it against Chicago and Minnesota twice. Perhaps the biggest indicator was the game against Tampa Bay.

Now a result of this is the playcalling. McCarthy wanted to be the New Orleans Saints. He talked about his love for the deep ball and he also talked about the hype of the team. That is not what this team is built to do.

The Dallas game was the turning curve. They had two solid drives in which they utilized the short passing very well. The rest of the way you saw the short passing game setup the deep ball, which in result made the offense much stronger.

Now play calling and Aaron Rodgers weren't the only problems either. The offensive line was horrible. Do I think the offensive line made a difference? Absolutely. It was part of the problem, but that's because this problem was so big, there was quite a bit of involved when it came time to solve it.

---

I understand what you're saying and I'm mostly in agreement. I do think the issue of repeated throws downfield was exaggerated. It was a point of contention that seemed to rise out of the Tampa game. Outside of that game there weren't a ton of examples of stubbornly aggressive playcalling. What I'm trying to point out is that the blame game associated with a rocky start suddenly gave credibility to armchair experts. VERY QUICKLY the story shifted from the offensive line's horrific play to poor playcalling and Rodgers holding on to the ball.

I would agree that Rodgers was at times holding on to the ball too long. Rodgers himself has addressed it. McCarthy addressed it. Philben addressed. Lord knows the talking heads talked about it. And working to rectify the apparent shortcoming seemed to yield positive results.

I just take issue with the tone -- or what I perceive as the tone -- of the armchair experts (not calling you out Porky) who took/take pride in diagnosing the problem as they see it. I feel like the changes made to the offense were more cosmetic or piecemeal than they were revolutionary, and most importantly the o-line's play solidified and the defense found its schwerve.

There's a way of boiling all this down to fans who remain bitter or unimpressed with McCarthy. It's apparent to me that he's a pretty fantastic offensive mind -- a sentiment I have RARELY heard others echo. People seem more preoccupied with his lack of press-conference candor or flair than his actual skill-set. When people were calling for Cowher to come to town I actually threw up a little bit in my mouth. It's like the head coaching position was a popularity contest that had to reflect the toughness and no-nonsense of the midwest/blue collar/Green Bay tradition.

I'm getting off topic; apologies. Maybe sometime I'll write it all out and hope that three or four people read and respond.

---